Author
Topic: The main reason Obama has my vote... (Read 11570 times)

IMO, the argument that the right would use (privately) is that by defunding PP you can hopefully put them out of business and then end all abortion services that they would provide regardless of the situation involved.

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

Since the government does not provide funding for elective abortions then I'm guessing the "problem" with Planned Parenthood is that someone thinks that they may be using some of the operational funds they receive from government for the purposes of abortion?

The problem they perceive is that any money toward any operation of PP enables abortion. While the government may not pay for an abortion, it pays for rent, electricity, staffing, etc, all the other costs PP would have to pay, but doesn't and thus is enabled to pay for abortions.

I tend to regard reality as neither fair nor unfair. Anyone who cries about reality being unfair to them is in denial.

I tend to think of it as unfair; as in lacking the quality of fairness. Given the background "teaching" of our culture is to say reality is fair, though popular culture, parental teachings, fairy tales, and yes, even religion, we are taught to expect fairness out of the universe, which is just a load of BS. When confronted with the reality, people are understandably disapointed.

BUt reality unfair to Romney??????? How???? I'd love to have life be that unfair to me!

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Since the government does not provide funding for elective abortions then I'm guessing the "problem" with Planned Parenthood is that someone thinks that they may be using some of the operational funds they receive from government for the purposes of abortion?

What's actually on the table? If PP doesn't use government monies to subsidize their operations then what's the problem?

From what I understand, most government funding for Planned Parenthood is tied to specific programs which are already covered by the government, such as family planning for low-income people under Title X, STD/HIV testing and prevention campaigns, etc. Any group that provides such services can receive such funding; PP happens to get a large share because they are the largest provider on the ground through their network of 800+ clinics and offices.

Another big source of government funding is reimbursements through government health insurance such as Medicaid. Some PP clinics employ M.D.s, such as OB/GYNs, patients can see them like any other doctor, and they will take Medicaid. At least some of the conservative "defunding" efforts seek to block PP doctors from being reimbursed for any medical services through government insurance. It seems grossly unfair to me to deny doctors payment for their "legitimate" medical services just because the same organization also provides abortions (which after all, are still a legal service). And this part doesn't make sense as a fiscal issue (since the same services would still be covered elsewhere), it seems to be a purely malicious attempt to destroy the organization...

And this part doesn't make sense as a fiscal issue (since the same services would still be covered elsewhere), it seems to be a purely malicious attempt to destroy the organization...

You have stumbled onto the conservative not so secret plan. Just like the one they are using to destroy the Post Office.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Ayo, are you fucking serious? I was making a joke about Mitt Romney and his campaign having problems with the truth. Maybe it wasn't funny or whatever, but I don't know how in the hell you can possibly have read my posts in the past or even in this thread and come to the conclusion that it's even plausible that I would think of Mitt Romney as a person that's somehow been given an unfair shake in life. Seriously, I'm fucking flabbergasted.

Mr. Blackwell, I'll get to your post in some depth when I'm off work but let me just say, I don't think that it makes much sense to question whether Republicans are serious or not when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood after they've voted in Congress to do so and after they've taken action in the states. But yeah, I'll try to get in depth tonight.

Mr. Blackwell, I'll get to your post in some depth when I'm off work but let me just say, I don't think that it makes much sense to question whether Republicans are serious or not when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood after they've voted in Congress to do so and after they've taken action in the states. But yeah, I'll try to get in depth tonight.

Thank you Timo, I appreciate the fact that you take my questions seriously and don't just assume that I present them as some sort of argument in defense of the GOP.

Edit

Same goes for you uncle Screwtape.

re Edit

and pretty much everyone else on this particular thread who has responded to my questions.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 03:06:01 PM by Mr. Blackwell »

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

What's actually on the table? If PP doesn't use government monies to subsidize their operations then what's the problem?

The thing that Planned Parenthood does is tell a woman that she has a choice (normal people without the abortion baggage used to call it counseling), which IMO is at the heart of the republican hatred of it. The funding cuts are to stop this.

Since the government does not provide funding for elective abortions then I'm guessing the "problem" with Planned Parenthood is that someone thinks that they may be using some of the operational funds they receive from government for the purposes of abortion?

No. It is illegal for Planned Parenthood to use that money to fund abortions. The argument is that by taking on some of the organization's other costs, it frees up money to be used for abortion. In other words, every dollar that the government gives Planned Parenthood for say, breast cancer screenings is a dollar that Planned Parenthood wouldn't have to spend on breast cancer screenings and could therefore use to perform abortions if they so chose.

If the government completely cuts off funding for PP will that shut them down completely?

Are there any proposals on the table to completely defund PP or is that scare talk?

Planned Parenthood would not have to shut down entirely if it lost government funds. But it would obviously have to scale back its operations if it were to lose funding, which would mean many people would lose access to the services they provide. Planned Parenthood also relies on charitable donations. And if they were to lose their government funding, they would likely have some of that offset by a surge of private donations not unlike what happened after Komen decided that it was going to cut ties with them.

As for proposals on the table, defunding Planned Parenthood something that House Republicans have voted to insert into spending bills. And this is something that has already been passed through the state legislatures of states like North Carolina.

As for budget question, the Ryan budget, the budget to which I was referring, doesn't single out public health centers specifically, as I know. But it does drastically cut non-defense discretionary spending and it also would limit many people's access to healthcare through Medicaid cuts. As for the Romney plan, I'm not sure that there are many specifics to the thing. According to Suzy Khimm, making the numbers work would require even deeper cuts than the Ryan plan.

As for how the candidate's budgets look in comparison to one another, I'd just head over to their respective websites. The numbers aren't all that important, as far as I'm concerned. They represent a best case scenario in terms of what could actually be passed and how the numbers might add up. They're more important as statements of priorities.

I have to admit that I just started reading this thread, but in that video with Chuck Norris,It was hilarious for him to have a bunch of KKK robes on the rack behind him?

Again I consider martial arts ghis or choir robes far more likely. He's ingnorant and idiotic enough with what is coming out of his mouth, let's not give the opposition ammunition to undermine our objections to this buffoon.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

What, are you saying that the opposition has no sense of humor,or that Bruce is not smart enough to disguise his KKK robe as a martial arts ghis?

True on both accounts.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Bunch of little things, mostly. But the racial example is a large part.

I grew up a white kid in strictly segregated small Texas town. No black friends, hell, hardly ever saw a black person, unless you looked across the tracks. I had no ill feelings against black people, because I had no feelings about black people. I mean, it was WHITE!

When I joined the Air Force, the world had just changed, and any display of racism could end your career. But there were not many black guys, so I still did not mingle much. After a few years in training and short assignments, I was placed on a B-52 crew where the pilot, the aircraft commander, was a very large black guy. Our crew was destined for combat in South East Asia, and I did not know what to expect. But it turned out that my boss had a good sense of humor, liked movies, music, good food, booze, shopping for cameras and hi-fi in the Japanese markets,... same as me, and we got along great! And I became color-blind, except for noticing a subtle difference.

Through out my life, I met many black guys, became friends with a few, but I always felt they had a strange attitude. A defensive, reservation against getting too close. Except for one--Charlie would just come to the cafeteria full of co-workers, and sit at a table full of white guys without that cautious, careful check to see who he was sitting by. He thought he was one of the guys. Turns out, that Charlie was born and raised in the Virgin Islands--he did not know he might not be one of the guys, because he had not been exposed to the every-day racism of American life as a child.

As I thought about it, I remembered the dismissal of every aspect of blackness from my early life, by my friends and relatives and parents. The blacks were made to feel second-class, by the whites, and by their families. Who knows how many times a bright, capable black kid, had been set down by his father (who had been horribly discriminated against) and told "You dont have a chance kid, no matter how much you try, you dont have a chance, whitey aint never going to give you a break." And I wondered how many black kids otherwise just like me, had turned to gangs, drugs, crime and violence, because my father and grandfather, would not have given his father and grandfather a chance. And I felt a little guilty.

So, I voted for Obama, largely, so that when some black kid's dad says "you dont have a chance", there will be Obama on TV, President of the United States, and that kid can think, "Maybe dad is wrong on this one." And I could think, by electing Obama, maybe I can help bring Americans together a little. And I will again.

And, what the hell, the unnecessary-wars+tax-cuts of George W, made me want to puke, and never vote for the GOP again.

Logged

'Everything has been said, but nobody listens and we have to keep going over it again.' André Gide

'No one listen, and if you try it for a while you'll see why.' Mignon McLaughlin

'There is no point in listening to others. They are either agreeing with you, or saying stupid stuff.' Dogbert

So, I voted for Obama, largely, so that when some black kid's dad says "you dont have a chance", there will be Obama on TV, President of the United States, and that kid can think, "Maybe dad is wrong on this one." And I could think, by electing Obama, maybe I can help bring Americans together a little. And I will again.

No offense intended because I like Obama as well, but if you voted for him specifically because he's black and not for his policies, then I believe you need to rethink your criteria for voting. Your sentiment of bringing people together is noted, but a black man could just as easily steer this country off a cliff as a white man.

Either way, we'll both be voting for the same guy in a few months.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

...but a black man could just as easily steer this country off a cliff as a white man. ...

Yes, just as easily. And there are certainly of black candidates that I would not support under any conditions. The racial example factor was just icing on the cake for the last election, this choice will be easier. The Republican move toward more conservative on the social issues has turned me close to a knee-jerk Democrat. We humans are frequently not really sure of our motivations. I might have just been voting against the other side. I was pretty pissed about my earlier delusional long-term support for Republicans, almost exclusively because of my fiscal conservative leanings. And then the previous president awakened me to the fact that tax-and-spend Democrats could be better than don't-tax-but-spend-anyway Republicans.

Logged

'Everything has been said, but nobody listens and we have to keep going over it again.' André Gide

'No one listen, and if you try it for a while you'll see why.' Mignon McLaughlin

'There is no point in listening to others. They are either agreeing with you, or saying stupid stuff.' Dogbert

...but a black man could just as easily steer this country off a cliff as a white man. ...

Yes, just as easily. And there are certainly of black candidates that I would not support under any conditions. The racial example factor was just icing on the cake for the last election, this choice will be easier. The Republican move toward more conservative on the social issues has turned me close to a knee-jerk Democrat. We humans are frequently not really sure of our motivations. I might have just been voting against the other side. I was pretty pissed about my earlier delusional long-term support for Republicans, almost exclusively because of my fiscal conservative leanings. And then the previous president awakened me to the fact that tax-and-spend Democrats could be better than don't-tax-but-spend-anyway Republicans.

Don't relegate yourself to a choice strictly between elephants and jackasses. We need to work to take the monopoly away from the political parties that have for all intents and purposes backed us into a corner between a rock and a hard place often making us choose between bad and worse.

Gary Johnson isn't going to win though. There is no scenario where that happens this year. He won't even be on stage at the debates. That's a shame too. Where the major parties agree are on some of our most destructive and immoral policies (ie our drug war, our drone war, mass incarceration, etc). But we're not going to be having that discussion. And Gary Johnson's not going to be president. If you vote for him, that's a protest vote and that's fine. But if you have a preference which of the major party candidate wins, you ought to vote accordingly. At least that's how I think about things as a dirty liberal.

Don't relegate yourself to a choice strictly between elephants and jackasses. We need to work to take the monopoly away from the political parties that have for all intents and purposes backed us into a corner between a rock and a hard place often making us choose between bad and worse.

You sound like a Gary Johnson guy...

Afraid I am not ready to go there. Only time I voted for a third party candidate for President, was in the 2000 election, and look how that turned out. I expect that one of the existing parties will step on their own ambitions, and lose their faithful flock. Could be something as simple as getting elected at the wrong time and getting blamed for a real depression. I wonder if the party leaders ever have a worry about that. Like could they think: "Do we really want to be captain of the Titanic when the ship of state hits the iceberg?" Or are they just confident that they as leaders of the flock, will get good seats on a well stocked lifeboat.

Logged

'Everything has been said, but nobody listens and we have to keep going over it again.' André Gide

'No one listen, and if you try it for a while you'll see why.' Mignon McLaughlin

'There is no point in listening to others. They are either agreeing with you, or saying stupid stuff.' Dogbert

Could be something as simple as getting elected at the wrong time and getting blamed for a real depression.

That sentence brings me back to the OP. I think Obama and his team have played the economy brilliantly and averted that “depression.” No, we are not out of the woods yet. Where did I read or hear lately that we were a weekend away from no economy at the time Obama took office, when the distasteful choices (give taxpayer $ to the very banks that screwed the taxpayers) made, saved the US economy.

I’d really like to see the Dow move very slowly over the next 10 years instead of getting pumped right back up and causing recklessness.It makes me wonder what would happen over the next 10 years or so if we get a George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan type making decisions at the top.

You can even see the idiocy of removing banking regulations extending to the deregulation of elections with voter IDs and corporation’s money as free speech. After Watergate, the congress put in election regulations, and, like US society has done with many things, as a generation dies we forget the lessons and make the same mistakes. MADNESS.

But I believe we are starting to see the masses realize how dangerous the tea party mentality is with the rise of Obama at the polls. Here in PA it is a good sign that the dog-on-the-car-roof-guy has given up and moved on to Ohio. Maybe too early to hope – but I’m hoping.

Only time I voted for a third party candidate for President, was in the 2000 election, and look how that turned out.

You're not seriously blaming the outcome of the 2000 election on Nader, are you? Gore went into that election with every conceivable advantage, not least among them being that he was the Vice President during eight of the most prosperous years this nation has ever seen. If he and his team had had the faintest clue how to run a campaign, he would have won by a landslide. That election was Gore's to lose, and he lost it.

"Only Al Gore can beat Al Gore, and he's been doing a pretty good job of that. Up against one of the most bumbling, corporate-indentured, horrible-record Republican candidates -- George W. Bush -- and he's still in a neck-and-neck race?'' --Ralph Nader, during the 2000 election campaign

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn